Very few Bible scholars believe now in the historicity of the book of Esther, but what is really incomprehensible is that their conclusion is based only on the following prejudice: this story looks like a fairy tale, consequently, it is a fairy tale! There is no chronological investigation despite the fact that chronology is the backbone of history and there has been no historical research among archaeological witnesses despite the fact that apart from ancient texts there is no witness. Worse still, to establish their chronology, historians have blind faith in the Babylonian king lists which are nevertheless false (reporting no usurpation and no co-regency). Additionally, in order to establish historical truth, they regularly quote the official propaganda of the time which is very often misleading. Yet it is easy to check in the tablets of Persepolis that Mordecai was an eminent royal scribe called Marduka who worked with Tatennai, the governor beyond the River, under the direction of Uštanu, the satrap of Babylon, during the years 17 to 32 of Darius. Similarly, the narrative of Herodotus regarding Amestris (a name meaning ‘vigorous woman’ in Old Persian), Xerxes' unique wife and only queen known in Persia, corresponds in many ways to Esther (‘star’ in Old Persian”) despite the unfavourable and biased description of the Persian queen.
|Copyright License||Standard Copyright License|
|Product Details||8.27 x 11.69 Standard Color Glossy Perfect Bound|
|Page Count||132 pages|
|Type of Publication||Monograph (standalone)|
|Peer Review Status||Post-publication, Under Review|
|Keywords||Book of Esther|